Adam Griffin
  Staff writer

Partisanship and political parties are deeply interwoven in the fabric of our society and government; however, it was not intended to be that way.

We were intended to be a union of ideas and principles. For example, George Washington railed against the creation of political parties; however, others were using his legacy as a prop for the first political party, The Federalists, against the first opposition party, the Democratic-Republicans, founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

While Washington was alive, unanimity reigned, yet in the elections that followed, the American people became increasingly divisive, and it became commonplace for well-respected men to employ vitriolic language in the press against their opponents.

Perhaps the greatest example of this mudslinging came in our nation’s fourth presidential campaign in 1800; the candidates were John Adams of the Federalists and Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republicans.

It was a no holds barred contest. Members of the Federalist press called Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

Those in the Democratic-Republican camp fought fire with fire by responding that President Adams was a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

The parallels between the political speech of 1800 and today are eerie to say the least. However, the political discourse in our country today, as the 2016 presidential contest heats up, may reflect a greater divide in the populace than at any time in American history since the Civil War.

The divide during the Civil War was gaping, and its biggest fissure was a result of slavery, which permeated every part of American politics. The Free Soil ideology of the North was driving the cause of emancipation, especially the need to halt slavery’s spread to the western territories.

But, to be honest, the motivations of many abolitionists were more rooted in economics than principle; this was because slavery made it harder for free peoples to compete and sell their labor in a burgeoning market economy.

You see, the North was industrializing and pushing free market capitalism against the slave powered aristocracy of the South — in many ways the capitalism and growing belief in free markets drove the average racist to be an opponent of slavery, which eventually turned the tide of the greater populace against the institution.

By contrast, the pro-slavery South had a more traditional republican society, based on agrarian economics and a structure of equality among those who were not slaves. Large plantations operated as small towns or villages, and government was less involved in their markets. Yet, a majority of people were small and poor farmers, so only the wealthy landowners held slaves.

Then, the political parties divided drastically along geographic lines, disagreeing on the general principles of their constitution and ideas of property. The country was so divided that Abraham Lincoln won the presidency without winning a single state electoral vote in the south, and the South subsequently seceded due to the ideological and representative divide.

Today we face a different, though perhaps subtly equal, divide. Currently, the American people are being divided, ideologically, by political parties that use them in order to maintain power; certain actors have expanded their influence by radicalizing the wings of each party. This effect has produced a stark divide between Republicans and Democrats.

The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has become increasingly liberal, perhaps even socialist, as evidenced by Bernie Sanders’ popularity — something that would have been anathema just a few decades ago.

This liberal wing believes in radical redistribution of wealth to equalize society alongside major regulation and interference in the economic system such as raising the minimum wage, taxes and regulation.

This, of course, flies in the face of conservatives and immediately creates animosity over key issues.

In like manner, the conservative wing of the Republican Party has moved even further to the right. These ideologues believe in drastic tax reduction and simplification, deregulation, cutting government spending as well as reducing the size and scope of the federal government’s involvement in economic sectors, such as health care.

The polarization of the parties is creating two irreconcilable ideologies that is best represented in the divide in the Constitution that the recent Supreme Court cases concerning Obamacare. These cases dealt with an expanding federal government that placed politicians and citizens in their ideological boxes throughout the law’s passage and litigation.

It remains to be seen if a unifying candidate, such as Thomas Jefferson, can arise and be elected to bring people together under a broad-based party of principle so that together Americans can solve the tremendous problems they face as a country.